DOUGLAS A. BITZER, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Scrivener'S Error cases and more on FLexlaw
PLEUS, C.J.
The defendant appeals from the revocation of his probation. We have carefully considered his claims and affirm, save for one aspect. Both the defendant and State agree that the written order of revocation contains a scrivener’s error. The trial court verbally pronounced only that the defendant had violated condition (3) of his probation but the written order of revocation recites violations of conditions (3), (9) and (45). It is well settled that where a written order does not conform to the trial court’s oral pronouncement, the oral pronouncement controls. Knight v. State, 954 So. 2d 1266 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007); McNeil v. State, 908 So. 2d 556 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005).
The cause is remanded solely for the purpose of enabling the trial court to enter a written order of revocation of probation, nunc pro tunc, in accordance with its oral pronouncement. The defendant need not be present for this correction. Knight.
AFFIRMED, REMANDED for correction of scrivener’s error. GRIFFIN and LAWSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Parris v. State, 974 So. 2d 415 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)…opinions. What can be determined is that preservation was not an impediment in either case. REHEARING DENIED. LAWSON and EVANDER, JJ., concur. . Appellant also sought rehearing en banc, which has been denied by separate order. . Bitzer v. State, 958 So. 2d 1029 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007); Knight v. State, 954 So. 2d 1266 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007). Knight relied upon our decision in Brown v. State, 786 So. 2d 1257 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001), in which the error had [*416] been preserved by a rule 3.800(b) motion. Brown, 786 So.…
-
Hileman v. State, 2 So. 3d 1065 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)…So. 2d 1219 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006). The defendant admitted the other two grounds; we, therefore, affirm the revocation but remand to the trial court to correct the sentence to omit any reference to the new violation of [*1066] law. See Bitzer v. State, 958 So. 2d 1029 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007). The defendant need not be present for this correction. Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded for correction of sentence.…
Authorities Cited
- McNEIL v. State, 908 So. 2d 556 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)
- Knight v. State, 954 So. 2d 1266 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)